Hi Michael, Thank you for the explanation. There is, however, still something I don't understand. On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 05:35:19PM +0200, Michael Bauland via Gnso-latin-diacritics (gnso-latin-diacritics@icann.org) wrote: [clip]
However, imagine mark.muller is a bad person and tries to impersonate mark.müller. Then it gets interesting.
With the same entity requirement, the domains mark.müller and mark.mueller belong to the same registrant ... company, whatever. They are then responsible to solve and issues with abuse and they easily can, because they own both domains and have a direct customer relationship with both Marks. The company selling those domains further on, would want to make sure, there is no abuse, because legally, they are still responsible for both domains, they have a contract with the registrar. They have a high interest, neither of the two Marks is doing anything bad with their domains.
However, without the same entity principle, mark.müller could get his domain and somebody totally different, using a different registrar, can get mark.muller and pretend to be mark.müller.
That is why I thought it'd be good to have same entity principle down to registrar level, but I don't see it on registrant level. Even as independent registrants, both Marks would have a relationship with the same registrar, no international law issues &c. It is not clear to me why this would be worse than having the intermediary between the registrar and the two Marks. -- Tapani Tarvainen